Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/11/2005 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB198 | |
| SB85 | |
| SB96 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 85 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 198 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 96-UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT/STATE FOREST
CHAIR WAGONER announced SB 96 to be up for consideration.
BOB LOEFFLER, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), explained that the
Governor promised to provide the University of Alaska an
adequate land base. In 2000, the Legislature addressed this
problem and passed SB 7 transferring 260,000 acres to the
University, but it had some significant problems. It had a $17
million fiscal note and took 10 years and didn't transfer
particularly good quality land. This bill provides a mechanism
that transfers 71 parcels to the University all at once for less
than 5 percent of the original estimated cost. In short, it
accomplishes the objective of SB 7 and gives significant value
to the University at a significantly less cost to the state.
4:18:31 PM
SENATOR ELTON said he was concerned about transfer of Pelican,
Mite Cove and Idaho Inlet, parcels on northwest Chichagof
Island. He related that:
It's been characterized to me that those parcels make
up almost 100 percent of the state land in the
northwest Chichagof region, 99.76 percent. Does that
sound right to you?
MR. LOEFFLER replied that sounded right.
SENATOR ELTON said a lot of land in the northwest Chichagof area
was disposed in earlier years and then in another 800-plus acres
were given to the University in the 2000s. He asked if that
sounded right.
MR. LOEFFLER replied that he wouldn't characterize that as a lot
of land, but in general, a small percentage of private land and
even a small percentage of state holdings in Southeast have been
disposed. The University got a significant amount as a result of
a court settlement in 2000.
SENATOR ELTON asked him to characterize those lands and wanted
to know if they were timber or cabin sites, for instance.
MR. LOEFFLER replied that, in general, lands that were
classified forestry with the expectation of timber were not put
on the list to go to the University. Because of the downturn in
the Forest Service, the state's Division of Forestry is
maximizing its allowable cut. To avoid impacting the division's
allowable cut, he did not put timberlands in this settlement. He
guessed they were recreational or subdivision-type lands for the
most part.
4:21:29 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the Legislature, as a condition of the
transfer of these lands to the University, could prohibit the
future sale, lease or transfer of lands conveyed to 501c3
organizations or others that would make them de facto
conservation lands rather than lands available for development
without legislative approval.
MR. LOEFFLER said he didn't see why that couldn't be done.
4:22:46 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN announced that he had an amendment regarding the
50 ft. from mean high tide setback requirement, because if its
impacts on shorelines in Southeast Alaska. The easement in the
bill is unspecified and he thought the Legislative intent was
for pedestrian access along the shorefront.
24-GS1034\G.2
Bullock
7/8/05
A M E N D M E N T 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR STEDMAN
TO: CSSB 96(RES), Draft Version "G"
Page 8, line 18:
Delete "shall"
Page 8, line 19, following "(1)":
Insert "shall"
Page 8, line 20:
Delete "and"
Page 8, line 21, following "(2)":
Insert "shall"
Page 8, line 22, following "plans":
Insert "; and
(3) before granting a lease of the land estate
or conveyance of land adjacent to any water affected by
tidal action,
(A) shall reserve along that water an
access easement that
(i) is continuous, unless topography
or land status prevents a continuous easement;
and
(ii) extends 10 feet from the mean
high water line on the side to be leased or
conveyed, and on both sides of the mean high
water line if land on both sides is to be leased
or conveyed; and
(B) may reserve an alternative upland
access route if the department finds that access along
an easement reserved under (A) of this paragraph might
be difficult because of topography or obstructions"
SENATOR STEDMAN explained that most communities in Southeast
Alaska use a 20 ft. front setback for their residential homes
and he first thought of changing the 50 ft. setback to 10 ft.
But, at the department's urging, his easement language is 25 ft.
along saltwater shorelines, which addresses Southeast Alaska's
concern.
SENATOR SEEKINS objected for discussion and asked him to explain
what kind of easements he was talking about.
SENATOR STEDMAN replied public access easements.
4:26:52 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked him to clarify if he was suggesting moving
the easement from "unspecified" or from 50 ft. to 25 ft.
SENATOR STEDMAN replied that historically department regulations
have not defined a specific footage for easements, but 50 ft. is
what is generally used. The issue here is the public should have
right to access the shore and beach and what measurement off of
mean high tide is applicable. He has other issues with the non-
definition, but this amendment only addresses the front setback.
Without defining the easement as a pedestrian easement, someone
could start a four-wheeler road right through the front of your
property. Some people have easements that are 50 ft. above mean
high tide and 50 ft. below mean high, which would give an 100
ft. easement.
SENATOR GUESS said she agreed with him on insuring public
access, but she wanted to hear from the department if this
amendment was needed to do that. She also asked if it should
specify feet or say public access, because the tide could be
greater than 25 ft. in some areas - so there wouldn't be any
public access at high tide.
4:29:38 PM
MR. LOEFFLER responded that the department doesn't have the
ability to visit every site, so historically and through
regulation, 50 ft. easements have been reserved. This figure has
been used from Barrow to Hydaburg. This amendment would apply to
salt water only and only in Southeast; those are the only
saltwater parcels in the University transfer. This amendment
would trump the regulation and reduce the 50 ft. easement to 25
ft.
4:30:22 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked if that would generally be from mean high
tide.
MR. LOEFFLER replied yes.
4:30:36 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked if public testimony said it needed to be
lower than 50 ft. or greater than 50 ft. for some public reason,
would the department consider adjusting it.
MR. LOEFFLER replied yes. The department doesn't have the
ability to do site-specific visits because of time and staff
constraints and that's why it uses 50 ft. with exceptions in
unusual circumstances - like the Kenai River that has a much
bigger easement.
The department also has a vacation process for changing
easements and uses it about once a year. This amendment would
eliminate the department's ability to go above 25 ft. only in
Southeast and for the University transfers. The University could
add more easement footage if it wished before the parcel was
further disposed of.
4:32:07 PM
SENATOR ELTON said he assumed that this language applies only to
the commissioner prior to conveyance, but would not restrict the
University from setting its own easement.
SENATOR STEDMAN responded that his understanding is that the
University could use whatever plat restrictions it thought was
in the best interests of the public in the area and noted that
it had exhibited very good stewardship in the past.
4:32:56 PM
JOE BEEDLE, Vice President, Finance, University of Alaska,
explained that traditionally the University has interpreted
transfers from DNR that have these easements to be maintained on
water bodies including salt water. It would be reluctant to
diminish the restriction and would feel more capable of
expanding it in an area that needed certain protections or
accesses.
4:33:54 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked how Mr. Loeffler would treat rebounding
glaciers along tidelands.
MR. LOEFFLER replied that easements only come into play when the
department is disposing of private land and retaining something
to the state. He has not had a lot of opportunity to dispose of
private land in front of rebounding glaciers. He thought
Gustavus might be an exception.
SENATOR ELTON said we're rebounding here at a half inch per
year. He thought this would be applicable to Pelican and Idaho
Inlet.
MR. LOEFFLER pointed out that the easement is referenced to mean
high tide.
SENATOR STEDMAN added that mean high tide changes over time and
some surveys are 100 years old. The mean high tide is changing
especially in northern Southeast due to the glacial melt,
especially along the Stikine where sediment is built up.
4:36:07 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS removed his objection to Amendment 1. There were
no further objections and Amendment 1 was adopted.
4:36:23 PM
SENATOR ELTON moved Amendment 2.
24-GS1034\G.1
Bullock
7/8/05
A M E N D M E N T 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR ELTON
TO: CSSB 96(RES), Draft Version "G"
Page 7, line 30:
Delete "JU.LM.1001, Lena Creek"
Insert "SD.1001, Sumdum"
SENATOR SEEKINS and STEDMAN objected for an explanation.
SENATOR ELTON explained that this amendment basically replicates
what a House committee did in deleting the withdrawal of Lena
Creek, which is a 600-plus-acre parcel, which would probably be
used for residential housing. In place of Lena Creek, it inserts
Sumdum Island, a five-acre that is an historic Tlingit site.
Line 5 duplicates the House Finance amendment that withdraws
from conveyance the parcels on northwest Chichagof that are
designated Idaho Inlet, Mite cove and Pelican. A couple of those
parcels, especially the one at Idaho Inlet, can get in the way
of some of the economic activity that is now occurring there.
He explained that those three parcels comprise 99.76 percent of
all the remaining state land that is available on northwest
Chichagof Island and that is one of the areas about which there
have been serious discussions amongst the communities of Elfin
Cove, Gustavus, Pelican and Hoonah about incorporating into a
borough government. Withdrawal of these parcels constrains the
lands that would be available to any new government that might
be formed in that region.
SENATOR STEDMAN objected for discussion purposes.
MR. BEEDLE responded that it appears that Lena Creek was slated
under the comprehensive plan of the Juneau Douglas Borough for
development purposes and was withdrawn for negotiating purposes.
"It is no surprise that it is trading stock for putting
something else back on."
Personally, he would like to see Sumdum left on. It is unique
for several reasons - for regional disparity it represents a
portion that has very little land in its close vicinity. Second,
it is true of the Tracy Arm - Ford's Terror Wilderness area that
this particular parcel has no private in-holdings and is an
equivalent to Bartlett Cove and Glacier Bay. The bay has several
areas of cultural significance and he reminded the committee
that the University is held to at least the highest standard of
everyone else and has a self-imposed higher standard for
historical, cultural, or architectural sites. Sumdum Island was
a mining community development after its Native use. The other
parcels at the northwest end of Chichagof Island would eliminate
the possibility of selections by a government entity and he
suggested a compromise of allowing Mite Cove to remain. It is
the smallest, so there would be some economic regional land
base.
4:43:04 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said he has numerous issues, but the one that
rises now is the issue of public process. If individual parcels
are going to be dissected out, "There won't be much left when we
are done. So, I'm not so sure...that we should try to look at a
holistic approach to all these parcels...."
He thought water quality issues were much more legitimate than,
"I don't want a neighbor" and that running lands through the
University to get them into private hands was a good concept.
4:45:22 PM
SENATOR DYSON remembered talking to the president of the
University about this issue a few years ago. He said:
'The University needs to watch out that the lands that
are given are a long, long ways time-wise from
producing revenue that will help to support the
University.'
The whole genius of the land grant college program
was, indeed, to give lands to the University that they
might be able to, I think, largely convert to
agricultural land and sell or put into production 100
years ago. But, Mark just went through with me several
pieces of land that were at that time up for
consideration saying, 'This is going to take a lot of
work on the part of my staff to develop it finally and
any revenue stream that comes from it is probably
decades out in the future.'
Then he didn't say, but I got the implication, that
University administrators kind of have to watch out
that legislators won't say, 'Oh, I don't want to have
to worry about funding you guys. What I'm going to do
is give you a whole bunch of land and then go away and
don't come back and bother me.'
SENATOR DYSON said he was worried in today's political social
climate that lands in the University's jurisdiction and is going
to be even less likely to end up in private hands than if it's
in the state's.
4:48:29 PM
MR. BEEDLE agreed with the president's statements and said that
the reputation of the University must be retained and that goes
to the stewardship of the land it transfers. Giving land to the
University doesn't mean it won't need a budget increment and he
thanked the whole Legislature for funding it 5 percent
incrementally over the last six years. It has leveraged that
money for the betterment of the state and the University. He
reiterated that getting land would not stop the funding
increment needs.
But how significant and how material and how
meaningful is the land grant? The University of
Alaska's land grant endowment trust established by
statute by the Legislature is $135 million. That is
not an insignificant amount of money. That's in trust
and we pay out 5 percent by Board of Regents' policy,
on a five-year average of the balances at year-end,
market to market - those securities and those
investments. So, we are paying out about $5 million,
because there's been rapid sales growth both from
recent years earnings and also from sales. In the last
60 days we've received $11 million in cash from sales.
We've sold over 70 parcels of property in the last six
months. We've sold over 1,200 parcels since 1987. All
of this has allowed the land grant trust endowment to
grow to $135 million. So, today after many, many years
of demand and market changes where finally something
that wasn't worth that much when it was received by
the University in 1915 - some of the Interior
properties - are now having demand and receiving
proceeds to benefit the University.
As far as the significance of this lands bill, the
fiscal note talks about as much as 1 percent. Whether
we interpret that to be state funding $2 million or
total budget of the University $6 million a year,
doesn't really matter because there's too many
questions. The biggest parcel that is totally
speculative at this time, the best odds I've received
in the Nenana Basin gas potential is one to eight
odds. But, thank goodness, thanks to the Governor and
the DNR's support for selecting that parcel that
you've had a hearing on, we would have 20 percent of
that land that sounds like it's in the sweet spot. It
sounds like it would be in an area that could produce.
The numbers range from $1 million a year up to $30
million a year that could benefit the University. I
don't know how short-term that is.... But they
testified as early as the year 2010 to be in
production. So, we're very excited about enjoying the
one eighth, 12.5 percent, royalty gas potential off of
that fee simple, including subsurface rights to that
gas. Other properties, as you've already heard - three
to one - our sales in acres across the state -
Southeast Alaska generates per acre three times the
value of our land throughout the rest of the state. It
is attractive for that reason and for the most part
that's where we're getting most of the feedback. To
remind you, .9 percent of Southeast land is in private
hands. We're hoping to add to that with full
recognition that we have to be sensitive and good land
stewards and work with people - all laws, all
regulations, all zoning and whatnot in municipalities.
And when not in the municipality, work with the DNR to
gain approval prior to any development.
We handed out earlier an enhanced process that came
out of House committee substitute in Resources that
shows our public process and then we've chosen to
interpret a portion of it to enhance our own
regulations for where we would involve more public
process and public notice prior to the development of
real estate.
4:53:45 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS called the question on Amendment 2.
SENATOR ELTON summarized that he appreciated Mr. Beedle's
comments and is motivated to amend Amendment 2 on line 11 to
delete all of Number 9, the Mite Cove parcel, that he suggested
could be a compromise the University could live with, and reword
the amendment accordingly.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if the intent is permanent removal or
removal because of the concern for more public process, because
he has an issue with permanent removal.
SENATOR ELTON replied that he shares his public process concerns
and the intent is not for permanent removal.
SENATOR STEDMAN interpreted that to mean that it is a permanent
removal from the University land request, but not from DNR. He
did not think the state should go down that road. He had a list
of 16 parcels for which that would not be good public policy and
wouldn't be in the best interests of the University of Alaska
either. He asked if the amendment to the amendment was to just
remove Mite Cove.
SENATOR ELTON answered yes.
4:56:43 PM
CHAIR WAGONER noted there were no objections to Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2 and it was adopted.
4:57:05 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS called the question on Amendment 2 amended.
SENATOR ELTON noted that the Sumdum parcel has been requested by
the Douglas Island Indian Association and this action does not
preclude DNR from a future decision to possibly convey the
Sumdum five acres to anybody. For the most, part this amendment
aligns with House actions.
SENATORS SEEKINS and STEDMAN objected. A roll call vote was
taken. Senators Elton and Guess voted yea; Senators Seekins,
Stedman, Ben Stevens and Chair Wagoner voted nay; and Amendment
2 amended failed.
4:59:17 PM At ease 5:00:20 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS asked about the enhanced process for disposal of
lands.
MR. BEEDLE replied that the University's disposal process has
been expanded from its current annual sales plan to include any
development or any disposal of any significance.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if that plan had been approved by the
Board of Regents.
MR. BEEDLE replied not yet, but he didn't anticipate opposition.
SENATOR SEEKINS proposed conceptual Amendment 3 that ties into
the process. He explained:
Many of my constituents in my area, in the Denali
area, particularly, feel very uncomfortable because
they feel like the Wolf Township incident really kind
of fractured their faith just a little bit in how land
that went to the University would be used in the
future. So my conceptual amendment would be just
somehow here, Mr. Chairman, if this process is
followed, I have no problem with it, but if this
process leads to the conclusion that these lands would
somehow be transferred into conservation lands, that
it would require another step, that being the approval
of the Legislature prior to it being done.
SENATOR GUESS objected.
CHAIR WAGONER asked Senator Seekins if he could turn that into a
letter of intent.
SENATOR SEEKINS conceded to work with land experts to bring this
amendment to the Finance Committee. He withdrew conceptual
Amendment 3.
5:04:23 PM
Public testimony opened.
5:04:53 PM
DEB SPENCER, Pelican, said the City Council passed a resolution
to exclude Mite Cove. The lands in the bill include over 99
percent of remaining public lands available in Southeast Alaska
and there wouldn't be any left for Elfin Cove and Pelican
selections if they choose to become boroughs. On an equity
issue, this region has already given three times the amount of
land on a percentage basis as the rest of Southeast. She is not
taking an anti-University stance, but feels Pelican has already
given its fair share. She concluded saying she wanted Pelican,
Mite Cove and Idaho Inlet parcels included in the list of
exemptions.
5:07:14 PM
MIKE RIEVES, Hollis, said one of the Hollis selections,
referenced as DWH01001 on his map, is inconsistent with the
Prince of Wales area plan. The subject area is designated water
resources with a management provision stipulating no development
there. This fact was verbally acknowledged by Mr. Loeffler and
the fix was intimated to be an excision of the area on the grant
list. In Section 5 of CSSB 96(RES), the commissioner is given
authority to make necessary corrections and paragraph (n) lists
exemptions from transfer and Hollis is not included.
Hollis has two other problems that have not been mentioned. One
is that a major water line supplying many Hollis public
facilities runs through the same selection that is included in
the mentioned water resources. It is in an area designated for
settlement and public facilities; so this appears to be a
conflict. The second selection problem includes part of the
Harris River Subdivision, which was designated to be mutually
exclusive of settlement and undeveloped public recreation. That
area has a boundary that runs tangent to a section of the Harris
River, which is a very important anadromous fish stream. The
uplands have been used extensively for deer hunting. At a
minimum what should happen is the selection boundary should at
least be redrawn to exclude the settlement, undeveloped
recreation designations and the subdivision areas.
Finally, he said that there are indications that the University
has alternative avenues of funding that would have considerably
less adverse impact on the community. A considerable amount of
land is available for private ownership already in Hollis; a 30-
parcel DNR subdivision is under way and the Mental Health Trust
also has a significant amount of property in Hollis.
RICH FLEISHMAN, Warm Springs Bay, opposed SB 96. He noted that
public testimony is 100 percent opposed to the bill.
5:13:01 PM
ELIZABETH TULLIS, Warm Springs Bay, opposed SB 96. DNR did a lot
of work designating uses for these lands and any lands
designated for recreation use and should be removed.
JOHN HERSHENRIDER, Warm Springs Bay, asked the committee to
consider that 100 percent of public testimony is against the
bill as was his.
CHRISTINE LUNDSFED, Warm Springs Bay, noted unanimous opposition
to this plan. She opposed trying to make up for quality by
giving away quantities of land. She accused that the bill was
surrounded with secrecy and people are enraged about it.
5:16:55 PM
SASHA CONTE opposed SB 96.
5:17:31 PM
PAUL JOHNSON, Elfin Cove, said the lands on northwest Chichagof
Island were selected had definite purposes.
We went through those selections. We waited after
statehood. We were limited on the land we could be
selected for; that land was asked for. We did not get
greedy when we asked for these state lands and when
they came forward and the University ended up with the
northwest portion of Yakobi, we didn't object. They
got that and they sold it for $1.5 million or roughly
thereabouts - 850 acres. For our future, for our
community, the Cove and the community of Pelican and
for our future borough, we have no economic status to
work with on these lands. Please understand, the rest
of the land is federal. We've got parks to the north
of us. There isn't anything left. Don't jerk the rug
out from underneath our feet....
MR. JOHNSON asked the committee to reconsider Amendment 2. "This
is extremely important for our future.... We've got 91 acres in
Elfin Cove, gentlemen. That's it. So, please understand that
this is a very, very, the biggest important thing since
statehood and ANILCA. Do not take this casually."
5:22:38 PM
NEIL DARISH, McCarthy, made the committee aware of a few issues
regarding the McCarthy 12,500 acre parcel. He is a large
business owner and employs a lot of local residents. They are
not anti-development and value the University of Alaska. The
danger is kind of unique in that this parcel serves as a buffer
for the community. It is the only place residents can get wood
and gravel for community maintenance needs, because other land
belongs to the National Park Service. The Park Service is still
trying to resolve ANILCA, which is still going after 20 years
and it still doesn't recognize the state's RS2477s that are all
over the place in McCarthy. Once the land is given to the
University, it becomes much more restrictive and the real danger
is that it can turn around and sell it to the Park Service.
HENRICH KADAK opposed SB 96 because the Roan Bay area is used as
a subsistence area.
5:26:16 PM
MICHEL NILAND, McCarthy, opposed SB 96. First, she didn't know
that it would benefit the University and the loss of the land
will devastate her community. There are hundreds of private lots
available now and flooding the market with more property will
bring prices down further. If this land is transferred to the
University, residents might need permission to approach their
own property. She noted a petition with 75 signatures opposing
SB 96.
5:31:30 PM
JASON ESLER, McCarthy, said he is doing cultural anthropological
studies in this area and thought the land transfer would destroy
the community.
At a time when the preservationists' ideals are
flooding the administration at the federal level, the
Park Service is closing access and restricting various
resources around the area. This specific 12,500 acres
is not a small chunk. This is a large part of where
our frontier community depends on resources to build
cabins, to get wood to heat cabins for their families.
These are extremely important areas.
Letting this land transfer go not only allows the
environmentalist movement an opportunity to acquire
more land in rural Alaska, but you're giving them the
upper hand in the situation. These rural frontier
Alaskans don't have the representation to make this
fight. For this land transfer to go through and to
allow the University to sell the land however it may,
leaves these communities with no other options. As we
move into the 21st Century cultural resource
management, these are the kinds of decisions that are
going to ruin rural Alaska. We've seen it happen
across the Lower 48....
5:33:18 PM
JULIE HURSEY, Petersburg, charter boat owner, opposed SB 96
because it would hurt her business. She would lose opportunities
to send people ashore into wilderness areas that she has been
using for years. Tourism is a flourishing business and provides
much needed dollars to Southeast towns. The small tourism ships
and charter boats often use "RU" lands in their trips. The
Forest Service has started limiting where outfitter guides and
small ship tour boat visitors can go on federal land so the
state lands are a very important alternative for them.
Selling these lands into private ownership blocks out
public use. This could do long-term harm to locally-
owned tourism businesses in Southeast.
MELINDA HOFSTAD, Baranof Homeowners Association, noted a
resolution from the association in opposition to including
Baranof lands in SB 96. One reason is because it is their
watershed and there is no other area to get public water. Also
it is one of the very few areas designated RU in the Southeast
area land use plan and it has 11 hot springs.
5:39:48 PM
VALERY MCCANDLESS, Mayor, City of Wrangell, said its residents
have numerous concerns about the three parcels - Earl West and
Olive Coves and Tom's Place - totaling 6,374 acres depending on
whether the community decides to form a borough. Tom's Place is
also has significant historical value and archaeological
significance, including petroglyphs.
AS 41.35 says it is the state's responsibility to
protect the loss, desecration and destruction of these
areas so that scientific, historic and cultural
heritage embodied in these resources may pass
undiminished to future generations.
5:43:26 PM
She said they would like to support the University and would be
glad to have a dialogue with them about property that might be
available.
RON SHONENBACK, Juneau, said he retired last year and worked for
the Division of Mining, Land and Water for 25 years and was
regional manager for the last five years. He is familiar with
the land base here in Southeast. DNR area plans set management
guidelines and classify state land. These plans go through an
extremely long and involved two to three-year public process
before they are adopted. Eventually they need approval by the
commissioner.
I guess what I find disturbing about the land list
that's generated by this bill is the fact that it's
included some settlement lands, some wildlife habitat
and some public recreation lands. DNR, obviously, is
funded to run a land disposal program and this bill
would take all of the settlement lands that are out of
control of DNR and hand them over to the University.
What it means is that within five years that DNR
basically would not be selling any land in Southeast.
I find this a very short-sighted approach to a land
disposal program that's functioned very well under
DNR.
During this planning process, DNR and the public have
agreed on a lot of these parcels to manage and be
retained by state for wildlife habitat and public
recreation purposes, which means that they should be
retained by the state. So, once these lands are
conveyed to the University, the classifications become
absolutely meaningless. They have no bearing on the
management by the University. So, DNR losses their
creditability on what they've told the public in the
area planning process and I think the University has
to realize that in the future when they try to dispose
of wildlife habitat and public recreation lands that
they are going to have another battle on their hands
in the future to think about.
MR. SHONENBACK also didn't think that 250,000 acres was a figure
that needed to be adhered to and suggested removing some of the
wildlife habitat, public recreation and DNR settlement lands,
amounting to about 3,000 acres in Southeast.
5:49:18 PM
JOAN BRODY, Kodiak Island, said she is one of the over 2,300
Kodiak residents who signed a petition that opposed SB 96. They
are mostly concerned with access to Narrow Cape (the rocket
launch parcel) that provides access to Fossil Beach that aside
from fossils has several historic World War II structures. It is
also the site where the largest near-shore grey whale migration
can be viewed from land.
CHAIR WAGONER indicated that it was already deleted.
JENNIFER PRICE, Sitka resident, said she works in Warm Springs
Bay. She commended the committee for extending the time to talk
about this issue and said that DNR has spent money and time
classifying Southeast Alaska's public lands and she is concerned
about the "RU" parcels that are included in this selection -
Sanford Cove, Whitney Island, Reed Island, Mite Cove and Lynn
Canal. She supported the suggestion to include more of
Southcentral land and delete all of Southeast's.
5:54:56 PM
DANIEL TRAIL, Tom's Place, had a petition with 37 signatures and
a resolution by the Tom's Place Community Association that
opposed SB 96, especially selection of the parcel next to it.
These lands were rated by DNR as community recreation and
development, "So, we are being robbed of any future say in our
development since they will be in other hands besides our own."
He also presented letters from the Mayor and City Manager of
Wrangell and the Wrangell Cooperative Association in opposition
to the bill.
MR. TRAIL said he could understand Senator Seekins' concern
about land being put into 501c3 conservation holdings and he
thought the communities might want to reserve the land for their
purposes.
5:56:57 PM
CHAIR WAGONER explained Senator Seekins' concern is that a
tremendous amount of land has been taken out of the public
domain and put into a non-profit situation where they will never
be allowed to go on the tax rolls. If a community decides to
develop it, it would go on the tax rolls.
MR. TRAIL responded that you can't trust the University because
of its past performance with other parcels and said there must
be language to protect the public interest.
5:58:48 PM
GABE SWINEY, Sitka resident, said he felt the same as previous
testifiers and added that much of the land in Southeast Alaska
is inaccessible muskeg or alpine. He opposed SB 96 and said he
speaks for many people in Sitka who could not testify here in
Juneau today.
ALLAN SMITH, Anchorage, opposed SB 96. He thought a creative
idea would be to grant the University land in the North Slope
areawide lease sale area.
6:01:27 PM
MERYL THOMPSON, Susitna Valley, opposed SB 96. He said the
conceptual amendment bothered him and asked if churches would be
excluded from buying land from University because they don't pay
taxes.
6:03:43 PM
DAVE NUETSEL, Girdwood, pointed out that the bill doesn't
require a certain number of acres to be given to the University.
"So, if there are all these objections to all these places, why
not reduce it?"
6:04:41 PM
CHAIR WAGONER related that Lisa Murkowski has a bill in Congress
that will grant 250,000 acres of federal land to the University.
It also has a provision that states it will match every acre of
land the state of Alaska grants to it.
MR. BEEDLE added that the University's goal is 500,000 acres,
but Congress wants evidence of the state's selection first.
6:06:30 PM
He also wanted to clarify the discussion earlier about the
University selling Cape Bingham on north Yakobi Island to the
Nature Conservancy that sold it to the Forest Service to become
an addition to the West Chichagof Yakobi Island Wilderness.
In 1992, after 10 years of litigation for property
that the University was to have received in the
Anchorage Bowl - we did not receive it; it went to the
municipality. There was a suit engaged; there was a
settlement. The settlement was to provide the
University of Alaska a one-time timber cutting right
in the Gulf Coast - meaning north of Yakutat, Icy Bay.
Then that was litigated by six groups. The groups
included the Longline Association, the Trollers
Association, Southeast Alaska Conservation, the
Yakutat Quorum, the Community of Yakutat. What
happened with the court adjudicated settlement was the
University could harvest timber, which has to date
brought the University some $40 million. So, this was
not a small consideration. And in exchange, we had to
give 10 years from 1992 to 2002 for right for an
intermediary to buy the West Chichagof Yakobi Island
property. So, in that court settlement signed by a
judge, the University had no choice for a 10-year
period and they waiting their full 10 years, which is
typical. They could not close, we advertised in the
open market for anyone interested in buying that
property. We received none; we gave them another year;
they came up with $1.2 million for property that would
be very hard to develop. And we sold it into that
conservation unit. That seems to be the conservation
unit that's getting the attention. Pelican spoke in
favor of it; had people on that group that sued the
University and insisted upon that settlement. Paul
Johnson is specifically and individually aware of that
settlement and supported it - individually. Many of
the people who spoke today wanted that property to go
into conservation.... So there's a story behind many
of the testimonies that have been given today.
CHAIR WAGONER thanked him for his comments and adjourned the
meeting at 6:09:31 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|